Colorado PUC and the Pueblo Coal Plant: Legal issues 2007-2006
These pages link to testimony and legal documents filed in hearings related to the construction of the Pueblo Coal plant. Most of the filings were done by Clean Energy Action.
Current legal cases:
Denver Post, October 16: The Colorado Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a case aimed at stopping construction of Xcel Energy's controversial Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant in Pueblo.
A pair of environmental-activist groups have raised several issues in appealing a district court's ruling against their 2005 lawsuit that sought to overturn an air permit granted to Xcel for the $1.3 billion plant. More
Friedlander vs PUC Rate Case
Xcel fails to disclose that their rate increase to recover the financing costs of the proposed coal-fired power plant in Pueblo is also the subject of a lawsuit. This lawsuit is Friedlander v. PUC and is in Boulder District Court (07CV104) and claims that the PUC failed to protect the public interest and failed to issue a decision that was in accord with all the evidence in the record on coal and water supply constraints as we move through the century. Without coal or cooling water, then the plant won’t be able to function as a coal plant. The PUC failed to issue findings of fact on this evidence as required by a long string of Colorado Supreme Court decisions.
Opening Complaint Regarding the Rate Increase 
Opening Brief in Rate Case Lawsuit
Air Permit Lawsuit
New:This lawsuit is presently in the Colorado Appellate Court (Case Number 2006CA001581) with oral argument scheduled for Tuesday October 16,2007.
January 2006: Opening Brief in Opposition
This is the file by Citizens for Clean Air and Water in Pueblo and Clean Energy Action. tHe Defendant is the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health. The brief challenges Xcel's permit to build the Comanche III coal plant in Pueblo on the basis that the company is already violating clean air laws with its two existing Pueblo coal plants. The brief also raises environmental justice issues.
Brief (191 Kb)
Construction Work in Progress (CWIP):
This is an important issue in the debate over Xcel's proposed Commanche III coal plant, namely the accounting procedures practices used by the company to justify charging Colorado ratepayers for the plant while it's under construction. Several representatives of consumers, via the Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel
have presented testimony questioning these practices:
August 2006: Colorado ratepayers propose Concentrating Solar Power as an alternative to Xcel's Pueblo Coal plant. Unlike most utilities, which issue corporate bonds for new power plants, Xcel has proposed that Colorado ratepayers finance the 1.5 billion dollar coal plant. This testimony proposed that concentrating solar would be a better investment, avoiding future increases in fossil fuel cost as well as pollution liability. Testimony
April 2006: Transmission Lines - Post-Hearing Statement
On the subject of Xcel's PUC application for permission to construct new transmission lines for its coal plants in Pueblo. Statement
March 2006: Transmission Lines - Motion on Likelihood of Construction
A motion asking the PUC to consider the significant cost of construction of transmission lines in the event that the Comanche III coal plant is not built. Motion
See Legal issues for 2004-2005
